start_ir_evading

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Start evading,' but does not explain what evading entails, whether it involves motor actions, sensor feedback, or IR codes, or whether it is a blocking call. The behavior after calling this tool is completely opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that directly states the purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool starts an evasion behavior, but the description lacks important context such as what evading means, how it interacts with IR broadcasting, and how the distance codes are used. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the behavioral context is missing. Given no annotations, the description is insufficient for fully understanding the tool's operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (far_code, near_code) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. No compensation needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('Start evading') and the target ('an IR-broadcasting robot'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like start_ir_following (evade vs. follow) and start_ir_broadcasting (evade vs. broadcast), though the phrase 'evading an IR-broadcasting robot' is slightly awkward and could be interpreted as the robot evading rather than the user's bot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_ir_following, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must another robot be broadcasting IR?). No exclusions or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.